First digital camera - opinions wanted.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Wilbur, Jun 24, 2004.

  1. Wilbur

    Wilbur Guest

    Hello. I'm an old school film shooter. I want to buy my first digital
    camera. Has digital reached (or passed?) the level of quality
    comparable to 35mm film yet? Any constructive suggestions on how to
    begin my search would be highly appreciated. Thank you.

    Wilbur
    Wilbur, Jun 24, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Wilbur wrote:

    > Hello. I'm an old school film shooter. I want to buy my first digital
    > camera. Has digital reached (or passed?) the level of quality
    > comparable to 35mm film yet? Any constructive suggestions on how to
    > begin my search would be highly appreciated. Thank you.
    >

    Wilbur-

    Your middle sentence, if answered fervently, is a war in itself!

    To answer your question, what gear do you have, as that *could* be
    seminal to recommendations.

    What sort of photog to you anticipate doing with a digital camera?

    --

    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Jun 24, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Wilbur" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello. I'm an old school film shooter. I want to buy my first digital
    > camera. Has digital reached (or passed?) the level of quality
    > comparable to 35mm film yet? Any constructive suggestions on how to
    > begin my search would be highly appreciated. Thank you.
    >
    > Wilbur


    The issue about film quality versus digital quality is a contentious one.
    Given certain circumstances, they are comparable. Fine grain B&W has the
    edge in the resolution and dynamic range arenas.

    Spend some time at sources such as www.depreview.com looking at the reviews
    and the images. Very informative and worth your time.

    The biggest difference is the software that one can use (without scanning
    film) to realize one's goals.

    Cost is another issue ... digital usually costs more up front but allows
    more experimentation and makes it feasible to shoot lots and lots of frames.

    Currently, I'm 100% digital but do miss B&W film and might someday revisit
    that medium.
    Charles Schuler, Jun 24, 2004
    #3
  4. Charles Schuler, Jun 24, 2004
    #4
  5. Wilbur

    Wilbur Guest

    "Charles Schuler" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > Whoops!
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com


    Thanks! I've spent the past 3 hours exploring that site. It is
    probably the best site I've seen for digital cameras, but I would also
    like to see some comparison between digital and traditional
    photography.

    Wilbur
    Wilbur, Jun 25, 2004
    #5
  6. Wilbur

    Wilbur Guest

    "Charles Schuler" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > Whoops!
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com


    Thanks! I've spent the past 3 hours exploring that site. It is
    probably the best site I've seen for digital cameras, but I would also
    like to see some comparison between digital and traditional
    photography.

    Wilbur
    Wilbur, Jun 25, 2004
    #6
  7. On 24 Jun 2004 23:19:19 -0700, (Wilbur)
    wrote:

    >"Charles Schuler" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >> Whoops!
    >>
    >> http://www.dpreview.com

    >
    >Thanks! I've spent the past 3 hours exploring that site. It is
    >probably the best site I've seen for digital cameras, but I would also
    >like to see some comparison between digital and traditional
    >photography.
    >
    >Wilbur

    Comparing film and digital photgraphy is complex and as others
    suggested, it is a bit of a religious war. Some thoughts...

    Good film equipment has a much longer useful life than today's
    digitial cameras. I have film cameras that I have used for 25 years,
    and these cameras are capable of taking excellent pictures. Newer film
    cameras have more "bells and whistles," but not much has changed in
    terms of the camera's fundamental ability to capture an image on film.

    By comparison, buying a digital camera is rather like buying a
    computer. The useful life of a digital camera is probably just a few
    years. The technology is still moving fast enough that digital cameras
    available 5 years from now will be tremendously more capable than the
    best available today.

    This makes it sound like I don't like digital photography. Actually,
    nothing could be further from the truth. As a "serious" photography
    hobbiest, I used film cameras for many years, but I have switched
    entirely to digital.

    For many of us, the end result we want is a printed image that we find
    "satisfying." In that context, the notion of "image quality" is rather
    subjective. Image quality, in terms of the information captured by the
    camera, needs to be good enough to accomplish what you want. For
    someone who want to print 3 x 5" snapshots of family events or post
    pictures on the Web, a simple "point and shoot" camera is entirely
    sufficient and pretty much any of the current crop of digitals will be
    fine. . On the other hand, Ansel Adams felt that only a large format
    view camera was able to produce the kind of images he wanted. If
    that's what you aspire to, digital just isn't there yet.

    Most of the people who frequent these newsgroups fall somewhere in
    between these extremes. Each of us has to determine through experience
    the equipment and approaches that suit us best. I bought my first
    digital camera, a 2.5MP Olympus C2500L 5-6 years ago. Though I used it
    regularly and produced some images I like, I still used my film
    cameras for "serious" work. By that time, I had a photo printer and a
    film scanner. A big advantage to me to digital printing is that I can
    do far more with images in the "pixel room" on my computer than could
    be done in a darkroom. It's also a lot less messy! Moreover, the
    immediacy of seeing a print and being able to quickly try alternatives
    -- variations in cropping, color balance, sharpness, etc. -- is a big
    advantage to me.

    Last year I bought a digital SLR (Fuji S2). For my purposes, I am able
    to capture and print images I like. I usually print letter size or 11
    x 17. With some care, I have produced satisfactory 13 x 19 prints.
    It's so much more convenient and immediate than developing and
    scanning 35mm slides as I was doing before. I haven't used my film
    cameras in quite a while.

    However, there are still a lot of people out there for whom digital
    photgraphy is not quite there. Anything you do with photography
    involves trade-offs. 35mm film photography became very popular,
    because it represents a good trade-off between image quality, cost,
    and convenience compared to larger formats.

    Each of us has to decide based on what we enjoy about photography, our
    subject matter, and the end result we want whether digital photography
    makes sense for us now.

    Leonard
    Leonard Lehew, Jun 25, 2004
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Memnoch
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,686
    vishnuasok
    Nov 16, 2011
  2. kerplunKuK

    Opinions wanted

    kerplunKuK, Jul 21, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    525
    The Old Sourdough
    Jul 22, 2003
  3. Pete
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    785
    Bay Area Dave
    Sep 22, 2003
  4. Bunny
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    596
    Big Bill
    Jun 23, 2004
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    577
Loading...

Share This Page